ID daze in COURT ... Time to place your bets ...

Judicially, it should come down to whether or not ID is determined to be just a form of creationism that pointedly avoids identifying a creator. Remember, the Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that creationism cannot be taught in public schools. It's a no-brainer for most of us, and it will reflect poorly on the judicial system (particularly the judge) if he doesn't rule that these goofballs are just trying to do an end-run around the previous ruling. I am betting the ID contingent will end up sitting on their collective asses out in the street - Bush-appointed judge or no.

I agree with your analysis of the 'hack factor' in this administration - many government agencies have been hollowed out and lots of the most capable (scientific) people have quit. FEMA is only the tip of the iceburg - FDA, EPA and USDA have been similarly gutted.Nevertheless, I an still optimistic that the ID side will lose this case. They must surely bear the burden of proof - proof they have a valid scientific line of inquiry, rather than just a religious agenda. It's not quite the same as the 'under god' distinction (although that pisses me off too). It is a case of trying to introduce something as science that isn't and teach it as if it were, rather than remove some verbage which has a long historical tradition in the country. I don't think that's a case they can make, and the judge can fall back on the 1987 decision as a precedent - provided our side can reveal ID for what it is - creationism in a cheap tuxedo. Surely that won't be hard to do. I am betting the ID side will try and focus attention on the alleged 'deficits' and 'inadequacies' of evolutionary theory, rather than try and prove they have some viable alternative, because they can't do that. If there is any justice to be had, it will be ID on trial - not evolution - and they will have to lose. Surely no court can mandate the teaching of supernatural explanations as science.ABE. I notice this story has two pages in the NY Times this morning."Parents in Dover appear to be evenly split on the issue. School board runoffs are in November, with seven candidates opposing the current policy facing seven incumbents. Among the candidates is Mr. Rehm, the former Dover science teacher and a plaintiff. He said opponents had slammed doors in his face when he campaigned and performed a "monkey dance" when he passed out literature at the recent firemen's fair."This message has been edited by EZscience, 09-26-2005 05:18 AM

Only one particular project on urban trasnportation alternatives, as I understand it. They have insisted it is just this one project they support and have always tried to distance themselves from the religious agenda of the Discover Institute. I doubt they will be picking up any legal bills, although these are plenty of rich fundies that probably will. If you read the article in the Times, it seems they are already trying to make it a 'freedom of speech' issue. I guess the locals are demanding the freedom to raise their kids in ignorance. But the point made by Omnivorous is valid. Their best chance may be arguing for 'local control' of education as guaranteed under states rights and the Judge may decide it is not germane for him to decide what is and what is not science, even though that is the crux of the matter. That's interesting. I had no idea. Was the ACLU asleep at the wheel when they slipped that in there?I think you have the right strategy in trying to show that ID is faith-based. Could be hard to do, though. They are a slippery bunch and it's hard to pin them down because their arguments are so amorphous.